The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-23522 3522-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN T AT CHANDIGAR PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH 240 Praveen CRM-M-23522-2025 (O&M) &M) 2025 Date of decision: 31.10.2025 ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN MAN CHAUDHARY ***** r. Shikhar Goel, Advocate for the p Present : Mr Mr. RK Jangra, AAG, Haryana. Mr. ***** r the petitioner. AMAN CHAUD AUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition filed u Pray filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, 2023, is for grant of regu f regular bail to the petitioner in cas 8.2018, in case FIR No.313 dated 29.08.2018 registered under S nder Sections 302, 201, 420, 467, 468 67, 468, 471, 34 IPC and Section 25 o n 25 of the Arms Act, at P at Police Station Chandhut, Distric istrict Palwal. 2. Learned counsel contends that the pe Lear the petitioner has been in custody for dy for 7 years and about about 2 months. The FIR of missing issing person was registered. He wa He was implicated in this in this case on his disclosure stateme tatement made in another case wherei wherein he was in custody ustody and alleged recovery of rope rope was from public place. There is n re is no direct evidence to nce to connect him with alleged occur occurrence. The CCTV footage whic e which is being relied up ied upon was not put to family membe embers of the deceased, besides whic s which identification of t on of the body has not been carried o ried out and there is apparently an ag age gap of 13 years b years between the deceased and the b the body so recovered. Charges wer es were framed on 02.09 02.09.2019 and all the 9 material w erial witnesses, out of 28, have bee e been examined. There There is only one case pending, FIR N FIR No.165 of 2018, against him as pe as per the information ation extracted from e-Courts webs website. Reliance is placed on th on the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.10.31 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23522-2025 -2- judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3. The custody certificate dated 28.10.2025, filed by the learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 7 years, 1 month and 11 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of having strangulated the deceased along with co-accused and was last seen with him and an Innova car that belonged to the deceased was recovered from his house. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of trial or information obtained from the website of e-Courts. 5. 6. Heard. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for 7 years, 1 months and 11 days; charges have been framed on 02.09.2019 and all the 9 material witnesses, have been examined and 19 still remain, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present petition is allowed. 8. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate ASHOK KUMAR 2025.10.31 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23522-2025 -3- concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- the intimidate (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10.
Decision
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. 31.10.2025 ashok (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.10.31 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document